King Kong remake is coming

[reddsun1]

At first I thought there was very little hype surrounding the upcoming Kong movie [but that could be a good thing; there's too much "behind the scenes" stuff surrounding films these days--spoils the magic, in a sense]. But I see they've cranked up the hype machine quite a few notches in the past couple of weeks. But the more previews I see, the more misgivings I'm beginning to have. I think I'm going to join the same camp as Graham: I think I'm going to end up [still] preferring the '33 original. The only problem with our modern-day system of movie previews and PR campaigning is: if you've seen the film trailer, it's safe to say you've already seen the best the film's got to offer; you've already seen the money-shots, so to speak.

I've only had two major sticking points with the Kong movies--both the original and the '70's remake. They didn't exactly spoil the movies for me, but they've always lingered there in the back of my mind whenever I've watched them, sort of like "hey, this don't add up." That was:

1. The Wall: okay we have this giant, mysterious wall, built to keep out some ancient and terrible foe. It's so ancient, not even the natives have clear memories as to who built it. But they know what it's for; it's to keep them safe from the monsters that rule the island on the other side. They dare not venture into the realm of the "terrible King" on the other side. So why, oh why in the blue hell would somebody put a DOOR in it BIG ENOUGH FOR THE BIG FU--ER TO GET THROUGH?! [yeah yeah, I know--cause the director wanted it that way, plus it makes for a pivotal plot point when the big ape comes lookin for "his" dame]

2. The Natives: IIRC, doesn't this story take place somewhere in the Pacific? So, if anything, shouldn't the natives of Skull island have been Pacific Islanders instead of tribal Africans, like maybe Samoan or Hawaiian, since that's who generally populates that particular region of the world? I mean, if I made a movie about exploring a fantasy world hidden somewhere in the North Pole, I'd want the natives/locals to look like they're Eskimoe/Aleutian, not like they're Arabian, or Greek, or something. [again, I know it owes to practical issues, like being able to cast enough extras, who's available when you're shooting, etc.]

I don't know if I'm going to like how the T-Rex fight goes either. Okay, if it were just one that Kong were fighting, I'd work with ya; but two T-Rex's? I only say this cause I've seen a clip where they've basically got the big ape from both sides, and one proceeds to clamp down on his arm something fierce. Sure, Kong's got the advantage of his arms [there's that whole opposable thumb thing he's got working for him] and dexterity, but I'm thinking these things have got to be like pit bulls--once one bites you, there's no letting go, game over. I saw a show where scientists and engineers built a mock-up T-Rex head [gotta love that Discovery Channel] and tested its bite; first on a side of pork, then on a hapless Mini Cooper. I don't know how they extrapolated the estimate for bite strength [8000 lbs/sq in], but it tore a hunk of ribs/meat out of that pork like you or I would tear a sheet of paper. The hydraulically operated skull then made quite a mess of the Cooper too. I'm just saying: that's a tough act to follow. One of those bas---ds could conceivably tear Kong a new a---hole. And then some. I still wanna see the fight though. I'm willing to give it a chance.

Edited December 9, 2005 by reddsun1

[Retracting Head Ter Ter]

1. The Wall:  okay we have this giant, mysterious wall, built to keep out some ancient and terrible foe.  It's so ancient, not even the natives have clear memories as to who built it.  But they know what it's for; it's to keep them safe from the monsters that rule the island on the other side. 

*edited*

  The hydraulically operated skull then made quite a mess of the Cooper too.  I'm just saying: that's a tough act to follow.  One of those bas---ds could conceivably tear Kong a new a---hole.  And then some.  I still wanna see the fight though.  I'm willing to give it a chance.

351056[/snapback]

Anyway, looking at the wall, doesn't seem like its a wall which Kong can't climb over. He can climb the damn Empire State using one arm anyway...

Yeah, a T-Rex bite should be awesome. But a punch from the arm of a 50 foot gorilla should pack enough whallop to mush the innards of even a T-Rex..... logically.

[reddsun1]

1. The Wall:  okay we have this giant, mysterious wall, built to keep out some ancient and terrible foe.  It's so ancient, not even the natives have clear memories as to who built it.  But they know what it's for; it's to keep them safe from the monsters that rule the island on the other side. 

*edited*

  The hydraulically operated skull then made quite a mess of the Cooper too.  I'm just saying: that's a tough act to follow.  One of those bas---ds could conceivably tear Kong a new a---hole.  And then some.  I still wanna see the fight though.  I'm willing to give it a chance.

351056[/snapback]

Anyway, looking at the wall, doesn't seem like its a wall which Kong can't climb over. He can climb the damn Empire State using one arm anyway...

Yeah, a T-Rex bite should be awesome. But a punch from the arm of a 50 foot gorilla should pack enough whallop to mush the innards of even a T-Rex..... logically.

351079[/snapback]

well yeah, you've got a point on both counts. I gotta learn to stop overanalyzing. It's like a big ball of yarn; if you keep pickin' and pulling at the loose threads, pretty soon the whole thing just comes unraveled. Gotta stop picking at loose threads. Just let go, and allow myself to indulge in the fantasy/story, even for just a little while.

[Solscud007]

Saw a sneak preview of it on monday and it was really surprising. I wasnt interested at first but since it was free. And I was greatyl shocked. it was really good. You dont notice the three hours. only thing is they gave huge cups of soda for free so you gotta go to the bathroom in the middle of the movie.

[VF-19]

I jokingly said to a couple of friends when I saw the trailer infront of Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire: "This movie is going to succeed. It's got monkeys AND dinosaurs! Every movie with monkeys and dinosaurs do well!" I made sure that the whole audience heard me too. They had a good laugh to boot.

I ALWAYS heckle the trailers and commercials before movies. Especially the commercials (not a big fan, I pay to watch the trailers and the movie, not the commercial).

Now as to the movie itself. Can't wait. Looks to be great!

[Agent ONE]

Copy that.  Giant ape running amock in a city, trampling the arrogance of man and his mailbox?  Not too interesting to me. 

350960[/snapback]

I'd rather bust out some old school Rampage. Much more fun running amock yourself.

351031[/snapback]

RAMPAGE!!! I loved that game.

[chrono]

Only six more days before King Kong hits theatres. Who's ditching work to see it?

350757[/snapback]

I am going to skip work and watch Predator with sunglasses on... It will be even better than King Kong.

350764[/snapback]

Gotta love it when people throe poop at a movie then state that a single man who survives against and kills a super alien makes a better movie.

And RAMPAGE was a campy & fun game, damn guys with flamethrowers!

[BoBe-Patt]

Only six more days before King Kong hits theatres. Who's ditching work to see it?

350757[/snapback]

I am going to skip work and watch Predator with sunglasses on... It will be even better than King Kong.

350764[/snapback]

Gotta love it when people throe poop at a movie then state that a single man who survives against and kills a super alien makes a better movie.

And RAMPAGE was a campy & fun game, damn guys with flamethrowers!

351189[/snapback]

haha, funny that you guys mention that game... I'm playing it right now!!!

[grss1982]

Meh, watched it last nyt. I felt that it was a bit draggy at some times. :-(

However, due to this film i've actually come to like/love Naomi Watts. She seems to be a good actress.

[reddsun1]

Well, I went ahead and made a leap of faith; just got back from seeing King Kong. Verdict? Meh--glad I only paid $5 bucks to see it. Spoilers contained below, beware!

The plus side:

--There were some cool places where Jackson threw in little homages to the original film. Like using the overture and tribal theme music from the original movie for Denham's NY premiere.

--Check out the squadron that the fighter planes are in at the end; kinda cute.

--Certain camera angles worked very well; like those where Anne's on the ladder on the Empire State. Some of those shots made me queezy--vertigo sufferers beware!

--There was a lot of beautiful detail and depth given to Skull Island that was appreciated. Certain details, like the ancient ruins [the ancient road, etc.] added a lot of back story just by being there.

--The special effects: in a lot of places, they were just great. The T-Rexs were sa-weet!

The minus side:

--Kong was a runt! I felt a little cheated; "why, you're barely bigger than Mighty Joe Young!"

--The special effects: yes, I know that's a bit contradictary. But in some places, they were just way overdone; gave the impression that they were trying so hard to wham-pow-sock it to the audience visually, they just went overboard with it. Gee-whiz, a good action scene doesn't have to automatically=sensory overload, guys.

--The dino-fight: sorry, but I just can't meet you halfway on this one, Jackson. The ORIGINAL '33 T-rex battle was more suspensful and believable to me.

--The dino stampede: oh fercrissakes! The laws of probability/physics/just plain common sense kinda took a back seat for this one. While the cinematography was good in that it felt quite "kinetic" [for lack of a better description], by the time it was over, I was thinking "allright, not nary one of them muh fuh's ought to be alive after this sh-t."

--The insect ravine: by this point, I'm like "oh for fu--'s sake! I've seen episodes of GI Joe more fuggin believable than this!" It just defies logic--even fantasy/movie logic.

--Carl Denham: As dry and wooden as his delivery was, I like the ORIGINAL Denham much better. Jack Black just seemed a bit too goofy/immature for me. That, plus in this ver. Denham's just a snivelling, self-serving worm.

--The whole "romance" thing: this "Titanic-only-with-a-monkey" vibe I was getting just got a little too wierd for me. I can go with the forced-dependence-to-survive-grows-into-a-sense-of-attachment; but it got just wierd. But to give credit whre it's due--I think the monkey's performance was better than Leo Decrappio's acting!

I could go on, but what's the point. I'll only say: Mr. Jackson, your monkey is only HALF the ape the original Kong was....in more ways than one.

Edited December 17, 2005 by reddsun1

[NERV]

i might rent it, as for special effects, from what ive seen they look mediocre, mighty joe young was a more realistic looking gorilla and jurassic park more real looking dinos, and taht movie is over 10 years old

[Duke Togo]

Hey, don't look now, but Kong is bombing at the box office.

[baronv]

Saw it last night, and it is about an hour too long. The beginning throught to the arrival on the ship I was sleeping. 2. action pieces I liked: 1. The dinosaur fight, 2. The insect ravine. The dino stampede was bad and the movie stretched too many scenes out for far too long. It aint gonna beat Harry Potter for money maker this year.

[DARTHTODD]

Saw it last night and really liked it. The beginning was a little long & some of the CG was a bit overdone but other than that I thought it was great! There were moments were I just watched in awe. It is really a beautiful film.

[SpacePirateNeko]

Im not sure what movie you guys went to go see but i saw king kong and it was damn awesome

Not for nothing but ive seen the original many times from when i was a wee lad until now...sorry nostalgia and respect are what make the original hold up so well , cmon the story and acting in the original was downright cheesy

Yea of course the dinosaur stampede defied logic....and because of that it was awesome. Why? Well probably because this is a story filled with dinosaurs and giant apes. I love when people look for realistic nuances in a movie that is designed to be a spectacle.

Lots have said the boat scene dragged...not sure why i felt it built tension, especially since we already know what was going to happen for the last 80 years. It made the whole thing alot more ominous.

I thought it was 3 hours perfect , wouldnt want it any shorter.

A+

[reddsun1]

Well, it's been said somewhere "let cooler heads prevail..." After some time to mull over what I'd seen, I won't give the new King Kong two thumbs down like I originally intended. One thumb up.

It's definitely a movie you'll have to mull over for a bit, or see a couple of times; you know, to let it grow on you, to appreciate just what Jackson was trying to do with this one.

JELEINEN: you were right in your orignal post before--making Kong just an overgrown silverback gorilla does kinda suck. I too, think I like him better when he was as described in the myth "neither man nor beast," when he was more "monstrous." But hey, that served a different purpose then, when that was all we were meant to see him as. Not so, this time out.

--The film score: seemed to struggle to set the mood for certain scenes in some places, and just seemed a bit "intrusive" in others. I did like the song by Norah Jones though--she has a beautiful, velvety smooth voice, plus she's a da-n good lookin' woman too.

--the Natives of Skull Island: my initial reaction--and I imagine most viewers' as well--when seeing them was like "what. the. fu--?!" Savage is an understatement. But then I took them into context with the "big picture" Jackson creates for us with the visual cues throughout the jungle settings, with the ancient ruins and all. These are a people vanquished, the last remnants of what was surely a great and vastly advanced culture. Just what would a peoples be reduced to if they were driven to the very edge of their world? a rocky, practically inhospitable crag of the island, kept away from all they knew of their former selves for dozens, if not hundreds of years? Yup, such savagery does seem a likely outcome if people are literally forced out of their own civilization. And yes, this ver. does try to address the issue of the wall's inadequacies as a defence, as brought up earlier. [this isn't really a spoiler: if you've seen the trailers you've seen how Kong circumvents this with his leap onto the wall] This wall is at least on the edge of a giant chasm, or "moat" if you will, which would explain how the monsters don't just climb over.

--the whole woman and ape thing: my initial knee-jerk reaction to Anne Darrow's loyalty to Kong was a bit damning. If anything, there isn't anything "romantic" about it per se, but there's a definite bond between them. I just have to remember the different social standards of the day for this movie, compared to those of 1930's America. This film [and even the '76 ver. for that matter] has definitely got the whole "animal rights" undertones at work. Kong's characterization has taken a 180 turn compared to his original screen depiction. In the original, Kong is the "beast," the monster, period. Hey, we all know how it's got to end; but he's much more of the "good guy" this go 'round. I don't think we're meant to see Kong as a monster in this ver. but more so as simply an animal, misunderstood by a flawed humanity. It was man who was really the monster in Jackson's King Kong. So by the time Kong takes on the planes at the end, the audience is pretty much rooting for him. I guess that's why Jackson makes a small concession to our sentiments and let's him take out more than one plane this time [the effects for that battle, the plane crashes were outstanding; gruesome, when you think of what happens to those poor bas---ds in the cockpits]. It could arguably be said that the new version of King Kong is NOT a monster movie [in the traditional sense]. Kind of a shame really; in spite of all the vitality and life that modern filmmaking technology has given this version, this Kong can't really be considered a "movie monster" worthy of comparison to the greats, but rather just an animal.

And oh yeah: Peter Jackson's a hack. Funny how--at least at the show I was in--the scenes that were most suspense laden and got the most audible response from the audience, the "oohs" and "ahh's," [the final part of the dino fight, between Kong and the last remaining Rex; the cliff scene, when Kong's pulling an escaping Anne & Jack back up on the vine] were the ones he just "Memorex'd" from the '33 original.

[Wes]

I liked it. It's nice to get a 3 hour movie for once as opposed to the now standard 90 min. one. And it had alot of action, the New York part was such a small segment of it.

The island was great, but I realized something now that I never really thought of before - there's no way these monsters, be them dinosaurs, something bizare, or just huge, whould give such a damn as to chase a person as intently as they do in this action movies. Really, how good can a person taste to these things? That's the only rational reason why they'd go after a what-is-bite-sized-to-them creature. It's like a fat guy chasing feverently for 5-10 min for a Hersey's Kiss; realisticly, he'd give up after 10 sec and just hobble over to the fridge.

[myk]

JELEINEN: you were right in your orignal post before--making Kong just an overgrown silverback gorilla does kinda suck.  I too, think I like him better when he was as described in the myth "neither man nor beast," when he was more "monstrous." 

353351[/snapback]

I strongly disliked the Matthew Brodderick Godzilla movie for the same reason. Both Godzilla and 'Kong were supposed to be nightmare creatures of a magnitude you can't begin to understand. In these revisions/remakes, they tone that down so that the monsters are less monstrous and more like freaks of nature. Bleah...

Edited December 18, 2005 by myk

[uminoken]

Well looks like Kong jumped Narnia in the box office, taking $66 million in 4 days to make it the fourth biggest December opening movie. I thought it was a great Saturday matinee movie. Wish they would have shown the trip to NY with Kong on the back of the ship and some of the bug attack scene did go on too long, but the rest of the action pieces fit just right, so the good far outwieghed the bad in my opinion.

ETA: cause $66 million is more than $66...

Edited December 18, 2005 by uminoken

[Sumdumgai]

The wormy bugs almost made me puke and made me squirm. Good thing it wasn't some yaoi porno thing!

I liked the movie. Didn't feel like 3 hours to me. It was plenty entertaining, and fulfilled it's objective of being an adventure movie.

[Briareos]

Hey, don't look now, but Kong is bombing at the box office.

353248[/snapback]

The weekend isnt over to say that just yet. Also I think the film release planning was poor. The date falls on finals week for most schools.

[chrono]

JELEINEN: you were right in your orignal post before--making Kong just an overgrown silverback gorilla does kinda suck.  I too, think I like him better when he was as described in the myth "neither man nor beast," when he was more "monstrous." 

353351[/snapback]

I strongly disliked the Matthew Brodderick Godzilla movie for the same reason. Both Godzilla and 'Kong were supposed to be nightmare creatures of a magnitude you can't begin to understand. In these revisions/remakes, they tone that down so that the monsters are less monstrous and more like freaks of nature. Bleah...

353383[/snapback]

Agreed! As they would ruin a The Thing remake.

We are simply gonna have to realize that any remake today is gonna become a mere action oriented movie because of Hollywood's current state even if it is 3 hours long.

[Duke Togo]

Hey, don't look now, but Kong is bombing at the box office.

353248[/snapback]

The weekend isnt over to say that just yet. Also I think the film release planning was poor. The date falls on finals week for most schools.

353425[/snapback]

As opposed to Star Wars coming out at the end of Spring Semester? By all reports Kong is under-performing at the Box Office by a good amount.

[chrono]

You can't under-perform against forecasts & projections. That's like saying that the music industry has lost money when they make billions in profit!

[DARTHTODD]

Hey, don't look now, but Kong is bombing at the box office.

353248[/snapback]

The weekend isnt over to say that just yet. Also I think the film release planning was poor. The date falls on finals week for most schools.

353425[/snapback]

As opposed to Star Wars coming out at the end of Spring Semester? By all reports Kong is under-performing at the Box Office by a good amount.

353439[/snapback]

$146 million worldwide in the first 5 days?? Please, I wish I underperformed to this extent.

[Apollo Leader]

Whether it be the critics or the movie going public, I think some people completely forgot that this movie is a REMAKE of a nearly 75 year old movie which has had one serious remake by Hollywood already so there's nothing too new here (besides the special effects and some characrter and plot development) unlike the Lord of the Rings movies which were fresh material. Some people had the wrong expectiations of this film... this was Jackson's opportunity to pay homage to the film that led him into getting into the motion picture industry.

As for me, I saw it on Wednesday and enjoyed it for what it was. I might have the chance to see it tomorrow night, but even if I don't, I plan on seeing it at least one more time.

[azrael]

Either way, Peter Jackson has complete leverage. Everyone knows The Hobbit will destroy anything and everything the Xmas it comes out. If Kong fails, Jackson makes the Hobbit sooner. If it generates some late steam, he can wait.

353458[/snapback]

Jackson's next is "The Lovely Bones", based on the book by Alice Sebold, which is scheduled for 2007. At the same time, he's working on "Halo". Rumor has it that

Guillermo Del Toro

will be director. But we're still waiting for the final word. So we're looking at 2008 at the earliest for "The Hobbit".

[Duke Togo]

You can't under-perform against forecasts & projections. That's like saying that the music industry has lost money when they make billions in profit!

Except the music industry doesn't put 200-400 million into producing, marketing, and releasing an album. This was Universal's widest release in number of screens ever.

$146 million worldwide in the first 5 days?? Please, I wish I underperformed to this extent.

Which is half of what they were expecting. 7 other films had a bigger opening this year, with Star Wars and Harry Potter doing twice the business. It was expected to do LotR type numbers, and its not even close.

You have to realize, they have to do 300 million+ just to break even. The budget was 200+, but throw in marketing and everything else that goes with the release, its over 300 million.

[DARTHTODD]

You can't under-perform against forecasts & projections. That's like saying that the music industry has lost money when they make billions in profit!

Except the music industry doesn't put 200-400 million into producing, marketing, and releasing an album. This was Universal's widest release in number of screens ever.

$146 million worldwide in the first 5 days?? Please, I wish I underperformed to this extent.

Which is half of what they were expecting. 7 other films had a bigger opening this year, with Star Wars and Harry Potter doing twice the business. It was expected to do LotR type numbers, and its not even close.

You have to realize, they have to do 300 million+ just to break even. The budget was 200+, but throw in marketing and everything else that goes with the release, its over 300 million.

353567[/snapback]

I understand that it didn't break records like they were hoping. Just wait till after Christmas though, this movie will be far into the black by then. Nowadays, anytime a movie breaks even at the box office, it's a win when you take into account the merchandising and more importantly the DVD sales. Trust me, this movie will make a lot of money, perhaps just not oodles of it.

[Hoptimus]

I saw the film yesterday.

I thought it was great. It didnt feel like 3 hours to me. I was glued to the screen. The begining is slow(Depression era 20's NYC was incredible) but the buildup is so nice once they hit the island the movies kicks in the nitrus. The island was awesome and Kong himself was incredible. Easily worth the price of admission.

[azrael]

Here are the weekend numbers from Cinescape:

1. King Kong - $50.15 million ($66.2 million)

2. The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe - $31.2 million ($112.5 million)

3. The Family Stone - $12.7 million

4. Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire - $5.9 million ($252.6 million)

5. Syriana - $5.5 million ($22.3 million)

6. Walk the Line - $3.6 million ($82.5 million)

7. Yours, Mine & Ours - $3.4 million ($45.1 million)

8. Brokeback Mountain - $2.4 million ($3.3 million)

9. Just Friends - $1.95 million ($29.4 million)

10. Aeon Flux - $1.7 million ($23.1 million)

[Duke Togo]

I understand that it didn't break records like they were hoping.  Just wait till after Christmas though, this movie will be far into the black by then.  Nowadays, anytime a movie breaks even at the box office, it's a win when you take into account the merchandising and more importantly the DVD sales.  Trust me, this movie will make a lot of money, perhaps just not oodles of it.

353571[/snapback]

You are certainly correct there, DVD sales is where their real money is made these days. They no longer get anywhere near the amount of people going to theaters as they were 30 years ago. Modern box office numbers are drastically overrated because of the highly inflated ticket prices.

[reddsun1]

Yup, although the original ver. of KK was just released on DVD, I'd count on the studios negotiating [if they haven't already] the necessary rights et. al. to ensure they'll be able to release it AGAIN, to coincide/package with the new version's pending release, thereby doubling their profits. Expect a "King Kong definitive edition" release or some crap like that, with all three versions in a box set; "...see both the original 1933 release, the 1976 remake starring Jeff Bridges and Jessica Lange, AND the smash-hit of 2005, plus up to 6 hours of deleted scenes, director's and cast commentaries and interviews from Peter Jackson's blockbuster remake..." ad nauseum.

I'd bet on it...

Edited December 19, 2005 by reddsun1

[Duke Togo]

You'd win that bet.

[Hurin]

You look at what's on the DVD. You look at the price. You calculate whether what's on the DVD is worth the price to you. You then decide whether to buy the DVD.

A year later. . . You look at what's on the Collector's Edition DVD. You look at the price. You calculate whether what's on the DVD is worth the price to you given that you already own the movie in some form. You then decide whether to buy the DVD.

I just don't see the problem.

H

Edited December 20, 2005 by Hurin